On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 11:00 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 06:31 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > It might be nicer, but could get messy when you consider all the corner > > cases. > > > > True, and the mess can be contained in a macro. Reusing the design for > > ChangeLog is worth a shot. > > Not to mention the script brings a mess of it's own in the build. It > > introduces multiple points of failure. > > Finding a home for the mess is not obvious. > > But the reason we put the ChangeLog mess in a macro is because it > would be used across all the modules. If it's only being used here, > then you might as well put it in the Makefile where it can be clean > instead of a shell variable that's substituted. Unless we think this > is going to be used in a lot places. >
That was one more reason (and a compelling one). Nothing prohibits from packaging the code in a macro so as to keep the makefile clean. It's one way, and there are many, to organize the code. Your argument to store the code in a file was that the code was complex and obscured the makefile. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I offered an alternative which is to store the code in a macro, even if it is called just once. Although Alan pointed out it may be used by drivers, for instance. I am biased by the work I have done on ChangeLog and INSTALL. I see a design there that solves the same problem. I understand it may mean nothing to someone else, we tend to use what is familiar to us. All I am asking is to give it a try, so we can evaluate it. > -- > Dan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
